The Holy See invited three American professors to present eight years of research on genetically modified crops and their effect on farmers, industry and the environment.

ROME — The
use of genetically modified organisms is a controversial topic these days —
even in Rome.

As part of its ongoing efforts to
stimulate debate about the issue, the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See invited
three American professors to Rome
on Oct. 5-6, to present eight years of research on genetically modified
organism (GMO) crops and their effect on farmers, industry and the environment.

The professors’ visit was timely.
A network of Christian and environmentalist groups recently spearheaded a
campaign warning of “Terminator Technology” (genetically modified seeds that
could be programmed to die and so protect intellectual property rights of the
corporations that engineer the seeds).

And in August, anti-GMO
campaigners destroyed a French farmer’s genetically modified corn — the first
time a commercial farm using genetically modified crops had been targeted.

Biotech companies, meanwhile, have
been continually accused of applying heavy-handed tactics to force farmers to
use their products.

In September, the non-profit
Public Patent Foundation filed a formal request for the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office to revoke patents issued to one biotech multinational, St.
Louis-based Monsanto. The foundation alleges that Monsanto is using the biotech
patents “to harass, intimidate, sue — and in many cases bankrupt — American
farmers.”

For its part, the Vatican has
expressed awareness of the technology’s great potential in reducing hunger, but
has offered no definitive judgments on its use.

Pope Benedict XVI has not spoken
on the issue, and the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences have advised scientists to “proceed with caution.”

The three professors who spoke
this month in Rome
offered some compelling arguments about the merits of genetically modified
organisms. Between 1996 and 2004, the researchers found substantial net
economic benefits at the farm level amounting to a total of $27 billion.

The technology had also reduced
pesticide spraying by 380,000,000 pounds and significantly reduced greenhouse
gas emissions from agriculture — the equivalent, the researchers said, of
removing five million cars from the roads.

Furthermore, none of the
professors had come across a single case of negative health effects on human
beings from using or consuming the genetically altered products.

What gave added weight to their
findings was the neutrality of the academics.

All three were former Peace Corps
volunteers whose research focused on the humanitarian aspects of GMO science.
And all three said they had no direct ties to biotech multinationals, although
one does belong to an organization that receives some funding from Monsanto.

“We’re just public sector
employees,” said Professor Greg Taxler, an
Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology lecturer at AuburnUniversity in Alabama. “We usually like to run these things
down, run them to the ground.”

The professors advocated more
genetically modified organism research targeted towards developing countries
and the small-seed market, and more public-sector investment in biotechnology
research.

Apart from a few government-directed
projects, most commercial genetically modified organism products are sold by
Monsanto and three other multinationals.

But the researchers debunked the
claim, often made by anti-GMO campaigners, that
profiteering multinationals make poor rural farmers dependent on genetically
modified seeds that aren’t beneficial to the farmers.

These “paternalistic” arguments
imply that farmers are not clever enough to be able to discern the advantages
of one crop from another, the researchers said.This “misinformation” — particularly prevalent among
European environmentalist groups — prevents farmers in developing countries
from being able to make good choices because propaganda has caused some
regulators in developing countries to prohibit genetically modified organism
products.

“The regulators always tend to say
No,” said Professor Lawrence Kent, director of International Programs at the
Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis,
“but in the meantime agricultural productivity goes down, poverty goes up, and
people aren’t finding a solution.”

Particularly frustrating for Prof.
Kent is that his organization has teamed up with biotech multinational Monsanto
to offer free modified seeds to poor farmers, but many African governments
won’t look at them.

The professors also accused their
opponents of spreading myths about damage caused to the environment by biotech
crops.

Carl Pray, professor of
agricultural food and resource economics at RutgersUniversity in New
Jersey, cited documentation of genetically modified organisms from
China
that actually showed a “dramatic” drop in nausea and signs of pesticide
poisoning when farmers used genetically modified crops that contain their own
internal pesticide mechanism.

Pray also highlighted research
indicating that genetically modified white corn in South Africa has reduced toxins
related to cancer and miscarriages.

Cardinal Martino

The Vatican has persistently
warned of two temptations regarding genetically modified crops: thinking that
only genetically modified organisms can solve the problem of hunger; and
falling into the trap of providing superficial information, fueled by
over-enthusiasm or unjustified alarmism.

Cardinal Renato
Martino, president of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, has taken a
particular interest in the debate.

During a two-day seminar on
genetically modified foods that the council hosted in November 2003, Cardinal
Martino said the Vatican
is a “student” in the debate about genetically modified foods and will continue
to study the issue for some time before making any moral pronouncements on the
technology.

“I continue to say what I have
said in the past: We must feed the hungry,” Cardinal Martino told reporters at
the end of the 2003 meeting. “You do not do that by giving them a meal of
genetically modified food, but by giving them an opportunity to improve their
lives, perhaps even using genetically modified crops.”

Comments

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.